UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
______________DIVISION
David G. Jeep, Plaintiff, vs.Commissioner Philip E. Jones, Sr., Sharon G. Jeep (ex), Joseph A. Goeke , Robert S. Cohen , Michael T. Jamison , Emmett M. O'Brien , Steven H. Goldman , Barbara W. Wallace , James R. Hartenbach , John A. Ross , Michael D. Burton , Larry L. Kendrick , Richard C. Bresnahan , Melvyn W. Wiesman , Maura B. McShane , Colleen Dolan , Mark D. Seigel , Barbara Ann Crancer , Mary Bruntrager Schroeder , Brenda Stith Loftin , Dale W. Hood , Thea A. Sherry , Gloria Clark Reno , John R. Essner , Ellen Levy Siwak , Patrick Clifford , Bernhardt C. Drumm , Dennis N. Smith , Judy Preddy Draper , Sandra Farragut-Hemphill , Douglas R. Beach , John F. Kintz , Gary M. Gaertner , Phillip E. Jones , Carolyn C. Whittington , Tom W. DePriest , David Lee Vincent and Gary Krautmann, Legal Counsel to the Circuit Clerk, State of Missouri, St. Louis County Defendants )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) Case No.___________________________(To be assigned by Clerkof District Court)
I. COMPLAINT
1. This issue is closely linked to another issue. It is not that I want the two related or that they should be related, but because of society’s bias and distaste for drinking and abuse, the two have been inextricably linked. The issues are a DWI and an unwarranted order of protection that has had a dramatic effect on my divorce, my life, my son and my resources. I beg your indulgence. We no longer discriminate on the basis of skin color, but accuse someone of drinking and abusing their wife and they have no rights. It is too easy to effect an allegation of drinking and abuse in to a conviction or a court order.
2. I am claiming damages based on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the 1983 Civil Rights Act. I was thrown out of my house, my property was taken from me, and my rights to my paternity were taken from me all without access to due process of law.
II. Plaintiff,
1. David G. Jeep
16359D Lakefield Place Drive
Grover, MO 63040
Phone 314-277-5904 / 636-458-4289
III. Defendant,
1. Joseph A. Goeke , Robert S. Cohen , Michael T. Jamison , Emmett M. O'Brien , Steven H. Goldman , Barbara W. Wallace , James R. Hartenbach , John A. Ross , Michael D. Burton , Larry L. Kendrick , Richard C. Bresnahan , Melvyn W. Wiesman , Maura B. McShane , Colleen Dolan , Mark D. Seigel , Barbara Ann Crancer , Mary Bruntrager Schroeder , Brenda Stith Loftin , Dale W. Hood , Thea A. Sherry , Gloria Clark Reno , John R. Essner , Ellen Levy Siwak , Patrick Clifford , Bernhardt C. Drumm , Dennis N. Smith , Judy Preddy Draper , Sandra Farragut-Hemphill , Douglas R. Beach , John F. Kintz , Gary M. Gaertner , Phillip E. Jones , Carolyn C. Whittington , Tom W. DePriest , David Lee Vincent, State of Missouri and St. Louis County.
℅ Gary Krautmann,
Legal Counsel to the Circuit Clerk
St. Louis County Circuit Court, Clerk's Office
7900 Carondelet
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone Number: 314-615-8029
Fax Telephone Number: 314-615-8739
2. Sharon G. Jeep
16325 Centerpointe Drive
Grover, MO 63040
Represented by attorney
James J. Robinson
215 Chesterfield Business Parkway, Suite "A"
Chesterfield, MO 63005-1226
Phone (636) 530-9199,
Fax (636) 530-6805
IV. Statement of claim:
1. The right to Due Process is immediately vested; you do not have to beg for it. The courts are obligated to provided it per 14th Amendment “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
2. The issue has never been heard by a Judge. All rulings to date have been the work of a would be Judge, Commissioner Jones and rubber stamped by real judges. Commissioner Jones is not a Judge, he is not an elected official, he is a hired hand of the Elected Judges of the St. Louis County Circuit Court, and thus all of the Judges of the St. Louis County Court have responsibility for his actions.
3. The Federal Courts have a system of Magistrate Judges, but the system has integral to it and up front agreement of both parties to a Magistrate Judge, it is not forced on anyone.
4. The original complaint on the face of it had no credibility and should never have been signed as an exparte order or protection. There was no specific complaint of abuse.
5. During the trial over the timely objections of my attorney, the Commissioner allowed testimony outside the scope of the original the Ex Parte Order of Protection and thus allowed surprise denied “Due Process.”.
6. After the subsequent unfounded ruling, the we made two specific motions, both asking for the definition of the new charges and a hearing on the new charges before a judge. All motions were denied and we were denied “Due Process.”.
7. This action by a would be judge denies the respondent his basic right to have the issue heard by a Judge, it denies “Due Process.”
8. The action because the respondent was not afforded prior knowledge of the charges was not allowed any time to make a defense of said “surprise” charges, denies “Due Process.”
9. In that, the charges were never specifically in writing enumerated, just ruled on. There was nothing to credibly appeal or defend against in the Divorce. There were new charges totally unrelated to the prior charges vaguely referenced to in the divorce proceedings deny “Due Process.”.
10. All issues adjudicated to date have been based on fraud. Fraud unravels it all (fraus omnia corrumpit). There is a strong legal principle adopted internationally that a party who obtained an award through fraud should not be entitled to keep that award. Fraud cannot be allowed to pay.
V. Relief:
1. I want the charges specifically enumerated and I want a chance to confront my accuser in court on the charges.
2. I want a new hearing on the divorced based on the fraud my ex-wife has perpetrated on the court to date. I want a new divorce hearing based on the results of the corrected ex parte order of protection and the fraud perpetrated and enforced with complicity by the Judges of the St. Louis County Circuit Court Fraud unravels it all (fraus omnia corrumpit). There is a strong legal principle adopted internationally that a party who obtained an award through fraud should not be entitled to keep that award. Fraud cannot be allowed to pay.
3. After the new hearing and when I have disproved all charges. I want compensation for the fraud perpetrated by my ex-wife and enforced by the incompetents of the Judges of the St. Louis County Circuit Court, St. Louis County and the State of Missouri.
4. In that all issues to date have a basis in fraud, I want a ruling from the court in my favor. I want the house and settlement for damages.
5. I want the right to custody of my son as the primary custodial parent. Custody of my son Patrick B. Jeep is the major issue. I want the current holiday plan to remain in effect. I want my son to reside at his house with me on a weekly basis the up side of the standard Zigenthaller plan, my ex-wife his mother getting every other weekend and every Wednesday during the school years and rotating weeks and Wednesdays in the summer.
VI. MONEY DAMAGES:
A) Do you claim either actual or punitive monetary damages for the acts alleged in this complaint?
YES o NO o
B) If your answer to "A" is YES, state below the amount claimed and the reason or reasons you believe you are entitled to recover such money damages:
Denial of my Parental rights for 4 years @ $50,000/yr. $200,000.00
Fraudulent denial of my property 4 years @ $50,000/yr. $200,000.00
Defamation of character $200,000.00
Half our assets at our separation $250,000.00
For a total of $850,000.00
Less the cost of our house at the time of the divorce ($245,000.00)
Less the half the cost of furnishings ($60,000.00)
$545,000.00
After an inspection of the house to see that it has not been damaged, I want the house and $545,000.00 from my ex-wife.
I will be asking for punitive damages, I think without them, the unseen criminals in the management of the enumerated criminals will not learn from this lesson.
Do you maintain that the wrongs alleged in the complaint are continuing to occur at the present time?
YES o NO o
I want primary custodial care of my son.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this 5th day of June, 2007
Signature of Plaintiff(s)
_________________________________________ David G. Jeep
No comments:
Post a Comment